Last SG 190 midterm

Forensic Psychology broad definition

applies psychological science to legal questions; includes assessment, treatment, consultation, expert testimony, and research; narrower clinical definition centers on practice; covers civil as well as criminal matters

5 subfields of for. psyc.

Clinical forensic, legal, correctional, police, criminal

Clinical forensic psychology

assessment and treatment of offenders

legal psychology

jury decision-making and eyewitness memory research

correctional psychology

interventions in jail and prision settings

police psychology

selection, training, and wellness of law enforcement

criminal psychology

profiling, behavior analysis, and motivation studies

expert witness

testifies about mental state, risk, or capacity

consultant

advises attorneys, law enforcement, or policymakers

evaluator

conducts psychological testing for court use

researcher

studies topics such as deception, eyewitness error, and rehabilitation

treatment provider

delivers evidence-based therapy in correctional contexts

5 roles of forensic psychologists

expert witness, evaluator, treatment provider, consultant, researcher

ethical foundations - governing guidance

APA Ethical Principles and Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology; Forensic evaluation serves a legal referral purpose - treatment serves a therapeutic one

Ethical foundations - Key Concerns

dual relationships and conflicts of interest; informed consent and limits of confidentiality; cultural competence and bias mitigation; transparency and documentation integrity

Hugo Münsterberg: 1908 (HF)

early advocate for psychology in the courtroom

Brown v. Board of Education: 1954 (HF)

psychological science used in legal argument

Jenkins v. United States: 1962 (HF)

psychologists recognized as expert witnesses

1980s onward (HF)

development of standardized forensic assessments

Why historical foundations matter

testimony and memory research, psychological testing, and expert roles tie the field to scientific evidence

Landmark legal cases

frye, dusky, tarasoff, daubert, atkins

Frye v. US 1923

scientific evidence is admissible only if generally accepted in its scientific community

Dusky v. US 1960

competency requires understanding the proceedings and ability to assist in one’s defense

Tarasoff v. Regents 1976

duty to warn and protect a foreseeable victim

daubert v. merrel dow 1993

judges act as gatekeepers and evaluate reliability, not only general acceptance

atkins v. virginia 2002

executing individuals with intellectual disabilities is unconstitutional

Police psychologist services

pre-employment screening, fitness-for-duty, post-incident support, training and policy consultation

Pre-employment screening

evaluates applicants before a hiring decision

fitness-for-duty

evaluates a current officer when changes raise concern about safely performing essential duties

post-incident support

help after critical incidents, trauma, and stress

training and policy consultation

preventive work on decision-making and agency practice

broad definition

Police psychology is not strictly forensic, but fall within the ——

Police-public contact and crisis response

people of color, serious mental illness, LGBTQ+ individuals, Crisis Intervention Teams (CITs)

people of color

higher rate of stops, searches, and force; mistrust can escalate encounters (George Floyd, 2020)

serious mental illness

police act as gatekeepers to care or custody (Daniel Prude, Rochester NY)

LGBTQ+ individuals

more reports of harassment; growing push for inclusive policies and recruitment

Crisis Intervention Teams (CITs)

pair police with mental health professionals to de-escalate crises and connect people with services. Evidence supports fewer arrests and injuries.

Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

limits police use of deadly force

graham v. connor (1989)

reasonable officer standard: judge from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, not with hindsight

Excessive force

force that exceeds legal justification; can be individual or systemic. Psychological factors: low empathy or antisocial traits, burnout and cynicism, poor supervision or agency culture

five types of profiling

crime scene, geographical, suspect-based, psychological, psychological autopsy

crime scene profiling

infers offender traits from scene behavior and victim selection; mostly serial offenses

geographical profiling

spatial patterns of offenses estimate where an offender lives or travels

suspect-based profiling

built from data on known offenders; describes groups, with racial-profiling risk

psychological profiling

focuses on known individuals; threat and risk assessment

psychological autopsy

reconstructs mental state after a death with unclear manner

Crime scene profiling limits

unvalidated assumptions, subjective judgment; risk of confirmation bias and investigator misdirection; rarely admissible as expert evidence; media popularity is not scientific certainty

case linkage analysis

identifies crimes by the same offender; relies on consistent and distinctive behavior across offenses; stronger empirical support than profiling alone

Eyewitness evidence: three variable types

estimator, system, reflector

eyewitness variable: estimator

outside police control: lighting, distance, stress level, exposure time

eyewitness variable: system

controlled by police: lineup construction, instructions, double-blind administration

eyewitness variable: reflector

witness confidence and post-identification feedback; confidence can rise without accuracy

why eyewitness variables matter

the type of evidence is highly persuasive to jurors, yet one of the least reliable forms of evidence

5 weaknesses of eyewitness testimony

stress and weapon focus, cross-racial identification difficulty, suggestive lineup procedures, confidence is not accuracy, memory contamination over time

Lineup best practices

fillers match the description; suspect does not stand out, double-blind administration, neutral instructions, sequential presentation recommended

Interviewing and interrogation models

reid technique, cognitive interview, PEACE model

Reid technique

confrontational and assumes guilt; high false-confession risk, especially with juveniles and vulnerable adults

cognitive interview

memory-enhancing: free recall and multiple perspectives; reduces suggestion

PEACE model

Preparation, Engage and explain, Account, Closure, Evaluation. Non-coercive and evidence-based

Interview vs. interrogation

information gathering vs. accusatory and confession-focused

Types of false confession

voluntary, coerced-compliant, coerced-internalized

Voluntary confession

confesses without pressure

coerced-compliant confession

knows they are innocent, confesses to end the pressure

coerced-internalized confession

comes to believe they committed the offense

Polygraph

measures physiological arousal; does not detect lies directly

Techniques of polygraph

Control Question test, Guilty Knowledge Test

Strengths of polygraph

investigative aid, can elicit confessions

limits of polygraph

false positives, examiner bias, limited admissibility

four stages of court system

pretrial, trial, sentencing, appeals

Pretrial

arrest, arraignment, bail, competency evaluation

Trial

Jury selection and witness testimony

Sentencing

Mitigation, treatment needs, risk assessment

Appeals

Review of legal errors

court systems - State

handle most criminal and civil cases.

court systems - Federal

apply the Constitution and federal law

court systems - specialty

include drug, mental health, juvenile, and Care Court

Trial consultant

assists with juror attitudes, witness preparation, and research; helps one side prepare

Impartial evaluator or expert

answers a referral question with balanced findings. Payment or retention by one side never justifies changing findings

Evidence standards - Frye

general acceptance

Evidence standards - Daubert

reliability, including testability, peer review, error rate, acceptance

Appeals and amicus briefs

appellate review checks legal errors; an amicus brief supplies relevant psychological research to the court

courts rely on us

judges and attorneys often defer to psychological opinions, more than the public realizes

liberty is at stake

decisions can mean incarceration, hospitalization, forced medication, or civil commitment

Ethical dilemmas

unlike therapy, forensic work often has consequences that are not therapeutic

two questions to ask every time

what legal question is the court asking?

what psychological information helps answer it?

Dusky standard (two prongs)

factual and rational understanding of the proceedings; ability to consult with an attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; present-focused and functional, not diagnosis-based; most common forensic mental health assessment in criminal courts

competency is not

intelligence; mental illness alone, insanity (competency is present-focused; insanity is offense-focused); the question is not “did they do it?”

Evaluation

Settings: jail, hospital, community, tele psychology. Records review, interview, mental status exam, sometimes testing. Many rely on skilled interviewing plus collateral information.

Malingering

intentional production or exaggeration of symptoms for external gain. A behavior, not a diagnosis; can co-exist with genuine illness. Triangulate across records, consistency, observations, validated measures.

Restoration

stabilizing a defendant enough to understand proceedings and assist counsel; not full recovery. Medication plus legal education; inpatient or outpatient.

Competency

functioning now, during the legal proceedings

insanity (criminal responsibility)

mental state at the time of the offense: did a mental disorder prevent the required mens rea? (Mens rea = the guilty mind, or the mental intent required to commit a crime.)

Insanity standards

a person can be competent but insane, or incompetent but sane: independent legal questions; no single national standard - states can craft different insanity tests; common approaches: right-versus-wrong test, test with a control component, Model Penal Code test, federal IDRA standard; some states have abolished the defense - the Supreme Court has held it is not constitutionally required

GBMI (Guilty but mentally ill)

sounds like a compromise verdict, but often results in prison and does not guarantee treatment

Diminished capacity

impairment prevented forming the specific intent for a higher charge, supporting a lesser conviction

Don’t confuse GBMI and diminished capacity

both are different from insanity, which asks about mental state and responsibility at the time of the offense.

Sentencing evaluations

treatment needs, program fit, and risk; mitigation: mental illness, trauma, neuropsychological impairment, intellectual disability; capital cases: future dangerousness and mitigation can be pivotal

Civil commitment (SVP laws)

some jurisdictions commit certain sex offenders after prison; rationale: ongoing dangerousness plus a qualifying disorder or “mental abnormality”; controversial: framed as treatment, but critics call it preventive detention

Core obligations - ethical dilemmas

remain objective - avoid advocacy for either side; guard against confirmation bias and allegiance bias; clarify limits of confidentiality and the non-treatment role

Role tensions - ethical dilemmas

dual roles; legal is not the same as clinical; forced medication to restore competency; never omit records to fit a preferred outcome